netdev - Re: [RFCv2 07/16] bpf: enable non-core use of the verfier

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2016 23:00:38 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
CC:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org,
        dinan.gunawardena@...ronome.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
        john.fastabend@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 07/16] bpf: enable non-core use of the verfier

On 08/30/2016 10:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:22:46PM +0200, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:07:50 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>> Having two modes seems more straight forward and I think we would only
>>>> need to pay attention in the LD_IMM64 case, I don't think I've seen
>>>> LLVM generating XORs, it's just the cBPF -> eBPF conversion.
>>>
>>> Okay, though, I think that the cBPF to eBPF migration wouldn't even
>>> pass through the bpf_parse() handling, since verifier is not aware on
>>> some of their aspects such as emitting calls directly (w/o *proto) or
>>> arg mappings. Probably make sense to reject these (bpf_prog_was_classic())
>>> if they cannot be handled anyway?
>>
>> TBH again I only use cBPF for testing.  It's a convenient way of
>> generating certain instruction sequences.  I can probably just drop
>> it completely but the XOR patch is just 3 lines of code so not a huge
>> cost either...  I'll keep patch 6 in my tree for now.
>
> if xor matching is only need for classic, I would drop that patch
> just to avoid unnecessary state collection. The number of lines
> is not a concern, but extra state for state prunning is.
>
>> Alternatively - is there any eBPF assembler out there?  Something
>> converting verifier output back into ELF would be quite cool.
>
> would certainly be nice. I don't think there is anything standalone.
> btw llvm can be made to work as assembler only, but simple flex/bison
> is probably better.

Never tried it out, but seems llvm backend doesn't have asm parser
implemented?

   $ clang -target bpf -O2 -c foo.c -S -o foo.S
   $ llvm-mc -arch bpf foo.S -filetype=obj -o foo.o
   llvm-mc: error: this target does not support assembly parsing.

LLVM IR might work, but maybe too high level(?); alternatively, we could
make bpf_asm from tools/net/ eBPF aware for debugging purposes. If you
have a toolchain supporting libbfd et al, you could probably make use
of bpf_jit_dump() (like JITs do) and then bpf_jit_disasm tool (from
same dir as bpf_asm).